Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Calgary East
Alberta

Conservative

Deepak ObhraiConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad. In accordance with its orders of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-293, and agreed on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 to report it with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 29th report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 29th report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, Victoria is a wonderful riding with many distinct neighbourhoods, but at the suggestion of constituents, I am proposing this name change. First of all, because of the many neighbourhoods in our community, this name change would reflect the fact that Oak Bay is a full municipality within the riding. It is a simple measure that acknowledges the contribution that this part of my riding has made to the unique quality and character of Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 29th report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership of committees of the House presented to the House earlier this day, be now concurred in.

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international panel of some 2,000 leading scientists, is due to release its latest report. According to yesterday’s Globe and Mail, that report will conclude that the evidence on climate change is “unequivocal,” and that human activity is the cause of that change. The report finds that due to climate change, extreme weather will increase; sea levels will rise; and the effects will be felt for more than a thousand years.

The magnitude of this challenge is clear, economically as well as ecologically. The recent Stern report, prepared for the UK government by Sir Nicholas Stern, highlighted the risk of climate change to the global economy.

The Stern report found that if countries do not address this challenge, the cost of climate change could be equivalent to the cost of both world wars and the Great Depression.

According to the report, climate change could shrink the global economy by a staggering 20%—yes, 20%. Canada must not shrink from this challenge. In a country so blessed with immense natural resources, technological ability, and creative ingenuity, we have the ability to be a leader. Moreover, as one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, we have the responsibility to be a leader.

The environmental achievements of the Liberal government extend well beyond climate change. The previous Liberal government took tangible, methodical and concrete steps to fight climate change.

Over the constant opposition of the Conservatives, the Liberal government renewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, passed the Species at Risk Act, amended the Migratory Birds Convention Act, established new national parks, ratified the Kyoto protocol, and played a prominent environment role on the global stage.

In 1998 the Liberal government signed Kyoto.

In 2000 we invested $625 million on climate change research and emission reduction.

In 2003 we announced $2 billion in new climate change funding.

These steps laid the foundation for Canada's fight against climate change.

In February 2005 the Liberal government passed a budget that Elizabeth May called the greenest in Canadian history.

The Clean Air Renewable Energy Coalition said, “This budget is so green it should have been announced on St. Patrick's Day”.

In April 2005 the Liberal government introduced project green, a comprehensive plan to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Sierra Club of Canada called project green, “probably the most innovative approach anywhere in the world for a government to actually reduce emissions”.

The National Environmental Trust said that, “With this first good step, Canada is proving that we can protect our environment and grow our economy”.

In November 2005 the Liberal government added greenhouse gases to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This crucial step allows the federal government to regulate the chemicals that cause climate change right now.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association applauded this move, saying, “We are united in our support for the use of CEPA by the federal government as an appropriate regulatory authority”.

In November 2005, in Montreal, the Liberal government used the United Nations Conference on Climate Change for what it was meant for—to fight climate change, not deny it, as the Conservatives did one year later.

Steven Guilbault of Greenpeace Quebec called the conference “a turning point” in the fight against climate change. The conference was praised internationally.

Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, added that not only was the Kyoto protocol adopted and successfully improved, but more importantly, it was also given a future.

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister came to office, he found a government and a country poised and ready to take on the challenge of climate change.

Thanks to the previous Liberal government, he had the legal framework to take action. He had a full set of programs already in operation and, by sheer coincidence, his environment minister had the chairmanship of the UN conference on climate change, the perfect vehicle for Canada to play a positive role in the world.

In short, the Prime Minister had the perfect opportunity to continue the work of the previous Liberal government on climate change.

Canadians know what happened instead. Under this Prime Minister Canada went from being a leader on climate change to a laggard, a lead weight pulling down our national policies and the Kyoto process at the same time.

At home the Prime Minister set about dismantling Canada's programs to fight climate change as deliberately and methodically as the previous government had implemented those programs.

He cut $395 million from our EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive.

He cut $500 million from the EnerGuide low income households program.

He cut $250 million from our partnership fund for climate change projects with provinces and municipalities.

He cut $593 million from our wind power production incentive and renewable power production incentive.

He cut $584.5 million from environmental programs at Natural Resources Canada.

He cut $120 million from our one tonne challenge.

He cut $1 billion from our climate fund to reduce greenhouse gases and he cut $2 billion of general climate change program funding.

The significance of these cuts goes well beyond a dollar figure. Taken together, these programs represented the superstructure of Canada's plan to fight climate change. The evisceration of these programs can only be the act of a climate change denier.

Not only did the Prime Minister cut funding for these programs; he set about disarming Canada of the tools and expertise needed to address climate change.

The Prime Minister eliminated the position of Ambassador for the Environment—a position created by a former Conservative government. He dismantled two key units within Environment Canada, the climate change group and the offsets group. He eliminated the government website, ClimateChange.gc.ca, which had helped inform Canadians about climate change and what they could do about it.

Finally, not content simply to cut Project Green, the Prime Minister removed every trace of that plan from the websites of both Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada. Project Green has even been removed from the archives of those two websites.

And then, adding insult to injury, this Prime Minister encouraged all the other climate-change deniers across the planet to do the same, by actively and deliberately undermining the Kyoto protocol—the only international process that is significantly tackling global warming.

Last November, exactly one year after Canada successfully hosted the world in Montreal, and secured the future of the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister celebrated the anniversary of that achievement in a most peculiar way.

He sent his environment minister to Nairobi to give the world a very clear message: when it comes to Kyoto, count Canada out. When it comes to honouring our commitments, count Canada out. When it comes to playing a leadership role on the environment, and in the world, count Canada out.

The Prime Minister's long pattern of climate change denial should come as no surprise to anyone who followed his positions before he took office.

In 2002 the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the Canadian Alliance, wrote a letter to supporters. That letter was intended to raise money, and to “block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord”.

In this letter the Prime Minister makes his views on Kyoto perfectly clear. He wrote, “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.

On the science of climate change, the Prime Minister even went so far as to question the role of carbon dioxide as a contributing factor, insisting that carbon dioxide was essential to life. Water is also essential to life, but that information is no relief to a man who is drowning.

The Prime Minister's pattern of denying climate change did not end with the Canadian Alliance. In May 2004, as leader of the new Conservative Party of Canada, the Prime Minister subjected Canadians to a lesson in Climate-Change Denial 101, when he said that the climate is always changing. In 2005, when the Liberal government listed greenhouse gases as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act—a crucial step toward fighting climate change—the Prime Minister said it was “clearly not in the national interest”.

Not in whose national interest, Mr. Speaker? The interest of those who deny climate change, who refute the science, cancel the programs, bury the reports, and abandon Kyoto.

Mr. Speaker, that’s not the national interest; that’s the Prime Minister's interest as a climate-change denier, and Canadians have made it clear that they will have none of it.

What a difference a few polls can make. In the past two weeks, the Prime Minister has engaged in the desperate game catch-up by partly reinstating some of the Liberal climate change programs he cut a year ago and only a pale imitation of these programs. He hopes to hide his beliefs on climate change. After a year of wasted time, these proposals now amount to baby steps on the road to a marathon.

Canadians are not fooled. They know that the Prime Minister has no commitment to fight climate change. His only motive is to prepare his party for an election.

The 2005 Liberal climate change plan was designed as a critical start for Canada along the road to a sustainable economy, one built on energy efficiency, resource productivity and conservation. This plan was designed to be revised and improved every year.

In the time that has past since that plan was introduced, time that the Prime Minister has wasted, the work that was begun has been frozen.

Today, I call on the Prime Minister, as I have since becoming Liberal leader, to live up to his government's responsibility on climate change, in particular, by implementing a cap-and-trade system of greenhouse gas emissions. Such a system was announced by the previous Liberal government in 2005 and its implementation cannot wait.

With the advances in technology, with the carbon market in place in Europe and ready to go in some U.S. states and with the time that has been wasted under the Conservative government, there is an opportunity and a necessity to go further than what was proposed in 2005 with more demanding targets. This is achievable in a way that strengthens our economy.

Just as corporate polluters cannot simply dump their garbage on our streets but instead must pay to manage their waste properly, we can no longer use our atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

We need a cap-and-trade system for industry that creates economic as well as environmental and health advantages in reducing emissions. We need to move to put a market price on emissions and we need to start transforming our economic markets to reflect the green reality. We need to revive Canada's leadership role and the economic opportunity that comes with it.

It is the job of the government to use every measure at our disposal: incentives, regulations, environmental tax reform, partnership with our governments and reaching out to Canadians. We need strong, fair rules requiring reduction of emissions in the short, medium and long term. The elements of the solution are clear.

I call upon the Prime Minister to implement a comprehensive plan to honour Canada's Kyoto commitment, including a cap-and-trade carbon market, with more demanding targets than that proposed in 2005.

I call upon the Prime Minister to implement environmental tax reform and fiscal measures to reward good environmental behaviour and provide disincentives for behaviour that harms the environment and human health all in a way that enables every region and province to succeed in the sustainable economy.

I call upon the Prime Minister to better support greener energy production and other forms of renewable energy starting with a minimum target of 12,000 megawatts of wind power production.

I call upon the Prime Minister to better support the research, development and commercialization of resource efficient and environment friendly technologies.

Most important, I call upon the Prime Minister to do all this in a way that strengthens the Canadian economy, providing better jobs and a higher standard of living for our children.

In conclusion, climate change is the single most pressing ecological threat facing our country and our planet. Beyond the walls of this chamber, Canadians are counting on us to get this right. Beyond our borders, people around the globe once looked to Canada as a leader, and I would like them to be able to do so once more.

It is clear that the Prime Minister has neither the courage nor the conviction to meet our Kyoto obligations. It is clear that we need a new government to do so.

In the meantime, I call on the Prime Minister to implement the initiatives I have called for today. This country cannot wait, this planet cannot wait, and this Leader of the Opposition will not wait.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when I read the motion this morning and interesting when I heard the hon. member opposite read the motion asking that the government come up with some kind of a plan because the government already has done that. What is interesting about the motion is that the hon. member is admitting that he did not even have a plan.

However, I did hear the member opposite say something about preparing for an election. That came from the member who said that he would not vote for the budget, a budget he has not even seen. Clearly, the member is preparing for an election.

As far as being ready, I have the honour to tell the House that not just myself but a number of colleagues on this side of the House have been working on this plan since before the last election. We were involved in developing a plan a long time ago and we are rolling out that plan as we speak. However, I guess the polls are suggesting that this is the thing to do today. I noticed that a number of the members opposite are wearing green ribbons which is their attempt at convincing the public that we are green. Maybe those green ribbons are actually living leaves because that would be a step toward cleaning the environment.

The member opposite, who just presented the motion, conceded that future Liberal governments would be unable to meet their Kyoto commitment of reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. That was said by the member opposite on July 1, 2006. Frankly, the member had 10 years to do this. This morning the member said that in 2008 “I will be part of Kyoto but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it”. He has been saying that for 10 years and he is still saying it, which is incredible.

I want to ask the member a very simple question, although I know I will not get the answer. Could the member tell us what Kyoto will do to reduce the number of smog days for the folks in Ontario that went from four in 1993 to some forty-seven in 2004?

Mr. Speaker, I will forgive the hon. member. If he did not know there was a Liberal plan I guess it was because his government made the plan disappear from everywhere, even in the archives. The plan exists. I do not have the right to show it but I will give the member a copy and I invite him to read it.

In this plan we were ready to honour our Kyoto commitment. The plan was supposed to be improved every year. We have already asked to have it improved. One of the ideas to improve it is to come up with tougher targets for large oil emitters. We urge the Prime Minister to do so. He may do it right away without playing this game with the NDP with the so-called clean air act. He can use the Canada Environmental Protection Act right now.

Concerning my declaration this summer, I will repeat again that if we wait for a year of inaction by the Conservative government, in 2008 it will be very difficult to be on time for 2012.

I also forgive the member for not understanding the difference between smog and greenhouse gas emissions. It has been said that we are talking about combustion. When we tackle greenhouse gas emissions it is not the same thing as smog. The countries that are doing a lot on greenhouse gas emissions are also doing a lot about smog. We do not need to choose. We need to do both.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my honourable colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a question about greenhouse gas emissions resulting from oil sands development.

Last year, during the elections, there was already a movement to increase oil sands operations fivefold. It went without saying that greenhouse gas emissions would also increase fivefold.

I would like to know the current position of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville on this development, one year after being involved. He knew about it. What is his position at this time? What position should the government take to limit greenhouse gas emissions resulting from oil sands development?

Mr. Speaker, it is an immense challenge for Canada, but it is also an extraordinary opportunity that we must not let go by. If we succeed in making Fort McMurray sustainable, if we succeed in ensuring that future projects are close to “zero emissions”, then this technology and expertise that we will have developed could be exported all around the world.

This is an extraordinary opportunity that Alberta and the rest of Canada must seize. To do so, we must adopt regulations, establish a carbon exchange and review tax laws. All these things we are proposing need to be done right away, in partnership with industry and the provinces and with determination and courage. And to do this we need a new government.

Mr. Speaker, I feel ashamed sitting here in the House of Commons watching the two old parties playing a game of Ping-Pong over an issue that is crucial to Canada's future. It is like a pantomime between Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

The Liberals had many years after the CEPA was amended to act and did not act. Obviously Canadians and members on this side of the House support the need for action now. We believe the government can and should act now. There is a need for a law that requires the government to act, not just a law, like CEPA, that allows the government to act as we saw by Liberal inaction in the past years in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully invite my hon. colleague to look with a bit more severity at the behaviour of her leader. At the Montreal conference on climate change, when the world was in Montreal, he was managing an election and was hammered by all the environmental groups for doing so. Not only that, he came to the conference and said that the conference would fail Canada, that it had no credibility whatsoever. It was an attempt at sabotage for partisan reasons, but the conference was a great success.

Canada was ready to be a leader and to help the world. We had the plan to go ahead. Everything was there, but because the Conservative government came in there was paralysis for a year. The NDP leader was in agreement with that, and when the Conservatives came out with their so-called clean air act, he denounced it and said we needed to act now under CEPA. That is what he said. What happened after that? As usual, as in 2005, the NDP is putting its own interests before the interests of Canada and the interests of the planet.

Order. There is an awful lot of yelling going on. While the leader of the official opposition spoke, there was silence in the House. He was listened to. I would ask that the same courtesy be extended to all members.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to identify myself with your remarks on the passing of the Hon. Lloyd Francis, the former member of Parliament for Carleton and Ottawa West, a riding I am privileged to represent. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to acknowledge his great service not only to our community but to Canada. Mr. Francis was a great man and was a great adviser to me on a number of key issues over the last year.

I was most fortunate to have met Mr. Francis and to have known him. I want to pass on my party's condolences to his wife and family. I attended the memorial service for Mr. Francis. It was not really a funeral but a celebration of not just one life well lived, but of probably about 12 lives well lived. He was a great man. I want to acknowledge his great contribution.

Let me begin my remarks today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat we are facing.

Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most important, for us right here in Canada.

While we share the disappointment of many Canadians and people from around the world that the former government did not meet its obligations or accept its responsibilities, let me indicate that Canada's new government will take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as we make our air more breathable.

That brings me to my next point. I am glad the Liberal Party brought forward this motion today because it is an opportunity to remind the Liberals of their shameful record of 13 years of inaction on the environment.

To make things worse, the track record of the Leader of the Opposition is very regrettable on environmental issues. People do not have to go far to read about his party's record. Let us look at the quotes from the 2006 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment...found that actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were ad hoc, lacked an overall strategy, and did not have an accountability framework. Environment Canada, in a risk assessment..., found that there was no central ownership of the initiative, leading to non-integrated policies.

That is from Chapter 1, page 10. The report goes on, stating that:

Canada is not on track to meet its obligations to reduce emissions...The [Liberal] government's own 2004 data revealed that our greenhouse gas emissions were almost 27 percent above 1990 levels and were rising, not declining.

The levels were going up, not declining. That statement is from the overview chapter, page 8.

Clearly, this is a sad track record of failure on the environment from the party opposite. To have the Liberal Party now lecture the House on environmental policy is like a Liberal trying to lecture other members on ethics. That party has no credibility.

Then there are the confusing statements from the Leader of the Opposition himself. On September 17 he told the globeandmail.com, “We don't know if the greenhouse gas emissions went up when I was Minister of the Environment...”. Less than three months later he told the Globe and Mail, “Greenhouse gases are going up, that's for sure”. These are not my quotes. These are quotes from the leader of the Liberal Party.

I must say that I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on one point. He told Canadian Press on January 17, about action on the environment, that “...I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

This lack of action on the environment is something I like to call the Dion gap. It is a gap between what we were supposed to be doing to reduce greenhouse gases and where we actually are.

The Liberal Party is a party of power, a party dedicated to staying in power and nothing else. That is why the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the important issue of the environment.

Fortunately, there is a new government in Canada. We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries, not only for greenhouse gas emissions, but also on the important issue of air quality in Canada.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had some problems in the Liberal Party with the efforts that his party made in this area. The Liberals had an opportunity to act. They failed to do so. In the dying hours of a 13 year regime, a regime that had been found guilty of corruption, money laundering and stealing money from taxpayers, so guilty that the Liberals had to return more than a million dollars in cash to the public purse, to say after 13 years that in those final hours they were finally ready to act is simply not credible.

It is very interesting to read the text of the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that regulations through CEPA are the only way to go. The Liberals did not go there in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. They had the chance to act and they did not.

Is that not just like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that does not like transparency or accountability, a party that prefers to work in the shadows? That party would prefer that cabinet, behind closed doors, make these decisions rather than have important legislation on the statute books of this country. That is exactly why we brought forward some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution, Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

What has been the response of the Liberal Party? For a long time, Mr. Dithers, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was running the show over there with the Liberal Party, and now he has been replaced by Mr. Delay, the Leader of the Opposition, with his sidekick, the member for Ottawa South. They have no interest in getting things done for Canadians. In fact, they want long, drawn-out hearings on Bill C-30, months of hearings, in fact. They want to study and have meetings, events and conferences rather than get to work.

While Conservatives voted for getting down to work and a quick session, Liberals voted for time extensions. Why? Perhaps the quote from the Liberal environment critic, the member for Ottawa South, says it best. He asked the committee studying Bill C-30, “What's the rush here?” Let me tell members what the rush is: greenhouse gas emissions are a priority. It is important that we tackle this problem as soon as possible, not as soon as possible plus 10 years.

Canadians sent us here to work together with all parties to get the job done on the environment. Some parties in the House, I think, get it more than others. Others clearly have not got it. The Liberal Party is the party that does not get it.

I think this motion is an attempt to derail the toughest regulation of greenhouse gases in Canadian history, and we are leaving behind the important issue of air quality, especially in regard to indoor pollutants. I think it is important that we do not lose any time and that we get to work on Bill C-30. Commensurate with that study in committee, the Department of the Environment and the federal government are actively working on the numbers and targets and the architecture and design to make this system work.

Tomorrow, some of the world's leading scientists will gather in Paris to outline what will be some very significant additional scientific research, something that will only encourage us to do more, not just around the world but hopefully here in Canada.

I look forward to receiving the contents of that report. From what I have read so far in reports, we hope to learn from world renowned scientists, and regrettably, the news is not good. Global warming and climate change are serious issues. Not only do they face us here at home, but they must bring the entire world community together.

For far too long, Canada has not accepted our responsibility when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This government intends to do something about it. Clearly, the Kyoto protocol is a 15 year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When it was signed in 1997, when the starter's pistol went off in that race, the Liberal Government of Canada began to run in the opposite direction. That is shameful.

As a result, we have a lot of catching up to do. It will not be easy. It will take focus. It will take Canadians working together. It will take members of Parliament from all political parties working together.

But I believe the challenges of global warming and climate change are the challenges of the 21st century and we must respond. We must respond by also addressing clean air. We can do both at the same time. Let us respond without sending $5 billion of taxpayers money to Russia, to China and to India, which will not help the quality of air in Canada at all.

This government will act. The government will deliver real results on the environment for Canadians. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate. I want to commend our leader of the official opposition for an extraordinary speech in which he has laid bare for Canadians the actual conduct of the new minority government. I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the Minister of the Environment.

Chiefly, I would like to go to the theme of misrepresentation. The minister has misrepresented yet again, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “here he goes again”. There they go again. The Conservatives misrepresentation game is something that Canadians are catching onto, and I would recommend that the Minister of the Environment get a new writer. For example, let me quote from the commissioner of the environment's report of 2006. She writes:

Even if the measures contained in the previous government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emission reductions would have been enough to meet our Kyoto obligations.

The minister should give the full quote and not misrepresent the facts to Canadians.

He speaks about regulating through CEPA. He talks about us, as a government, not having regulated through CEPA. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Kyoto protocol became international law in 2005?

Another question for the minister is this. Is it true the minister is flying to France tomorrow to find his made in Canada solution?

I have another question for the minister. The Prime Minister was asked 18 times in a row yesterday if he was misleading Canadians over the past 10 years, or was he misleading Canadians on his new-found position on climate change.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asks if I was aware that Kyoto only officially came into effect in 2005. I think it was 2004 when Russia signed on. In 1997 we said this was a huge global problem. Why would we wait from 1997 until the Russian parliament actually passed the bill? The Liberal government did absolutely nothing when it was in power.

The member for Ottawa South heckled me yesterday during question period and said I was quoting him inaccurately. He rose on a point of order afterward and demanded that I give the sources. I gave all the sources and, in fact, everything I said yesterday he actually said. We have to look at the credibility.

I will remind Liberal members of what the member for Ottawa South said in the National Post, on March 23, 2006. He said, “The Liberal Party was involved in a medium-sized car crash”. The member said that he never said it, but we have come up with the proof. He also said, “when people see the costs of Kyoto, they are going to scream”. He said that he did not say it, but he said it on January 1, 2003, in the work of Canadian Speeches, volume 16, issue 6.